Jarnail Singh Vs State of Punjab

The appellant-convict; taki n g exception to the judgment of convictio n and order of sentence dated 1 3 .11.2017 passed by Judge, Spe c ial Court, S a ngrur (hereinafter referred to a s ‘trial Court’); has preferred the instant a p peal. The trial Court, after r e cording the prosecution evide n ce came to t h e conclusion that the appellant-convict was guilty of possessio n of contraba n d (i.e. 15 kgs of Poppy husk). H e was convicted under Section 15 of the Na r cotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafte r to be referr e d as ‘the Act’) and sentenced t o undergo RI for 09 months an d to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default wh e reof to further undergo RI for 03 months.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant-convict, at the out s et, submits t hat he is not pressing the ap p eal in hand on merits, in so f ar, convictio n of the appellant is concerned. He has, however, submitted that the sente n ce imposed upon the appellant - convict be reduced in view of the

¶15

AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.22 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CRA-S-4152-SB-2017 2

¶17

factum o f his protracted trial, his age, a n tecedents and his familial related responsibility(s). 3. Per contra, learned State c o unsel has opposed the plea of the appellant , in so far, as it relates to the r eduction of the sentence impo s ed upon hi m , by arguing that the order of s e ntence passed by the learned t r ial Court is i n consonance with principles o f law and justice and the natur e of offence committed by him. He has sou g ht to place on record the cust o dy certificat e dated 19.09.2025, which is tak e n on record.

¶18

I have heard learned coun s el for the rival parties and h a ve perused t h e record. 5. Since the appellant-convict h as chosen not to press the ap p eal in hand on merits, in so far as judg m ent of conviction is concer n ed, therefore, this Court is only examining the issue of quantum of sente n ce imposed u pon the appellant.

¶19

Before delving into the m e rits of the appeal as regard the quantum of sentence, it would be appo s ite to refer herein to a judgment passed b y the Hon’ble Supreme Court t itled as K. Pounammal vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police 2025 INSC 1014

¶20

“5.3 This Court has been con s istent in approaching and dealing w ith the cases where the sentence alr e ady undergone by the convict is tre a ted to be adequate sentence fo r variety of mitigating factors a nd circumstances operating in the c a se.

¶21

5.4 The accused in B.G. Gos w ami v. Delhi Admn. [(1974) 3 SCC 8 5], was convicted for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption A ct, 1988. The Court observed that t h e main purpose of the sentence, bro a dly stated, is that the accused mus t realise that he has committed an act which is harmful not only to the society of which he forms an integral p art but is also harmful to his own f uture, both as an individual and a s a member of the society. It is the d esign to protect the society by deter r ing

¶22

AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.22 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CRA-S-4152-SB-2017

¶24

3

¶25

potential offenders as also by pr e venting the guilty party from repea t ing the offence. It was stated that re fo rmatory aspect is also relevant and the offender should be reclaimed as l a w abiding citizen.

¶26

5.5 In Dologovinda Mohanty vs. State of Orissa [(1979) 4 SCC 5 5 7], this Court took into account of ₹ 138/- alleged to have been receive d by accused as illegal gratification, w hile confirming the conviction to re d uce the sentence. In the same way, in State of Maharashtra v. Rashi d B. Mulani [(2006) 1 SCC 407] the a ccused had obtained illegal gratifica t ion to the tune of ₹300/- in the ca p acity of Talathi. The said incident h ad occurred before 19 years and th e case was pending since long before the Special Judge. This Court reduce d the sentence.

¶27

5.6 In K.P. Singh vs. State (N C T of Delhi) [(2015) 15 SCC 497] it w as observed by the Court that the q u antum of sentence to be awarded w o uld depends upon a variety of factor s including the mitigating circumsta n ces in a given case. It was stated tha t in doing so the courts are influence d in varying degree, and adopt refor m ative, deterrent and punitive appro a ch. 5.6. It was observed thus, “… . .delay in the conclusion of the trial a nd legal proceedings, the age of th e accused, his physical/health condit i on, the nature of the offence, the w eapon used and in the cases of ill e gal gratification the amount of bribe, loss of job and family obligations o f the accused are also some of the co n siderations that weigh heavily with the courts while determining the sen t ence to be awarded…..” (Para 10) 6. The conviction and sente n ce have their respective realms. Wh ile the conviction would be recorde d on the basis of evidence adduced be f ore the Court which would establis h the implication of the accused in the offence, the guilty person or t he convicted when to be awarde d a sentence, a host of factors would o perate to govern.

¶28

6.1 In determining the final s e ntence and the nature thereof, variet y of factors that would operate would include the intervening time between the commission of offence and the a ctual award of the sentence, age of the accused, the stress which he o r she might have suffered becaus e of passage of time during each cas e has remained pending and undeci d ed, the family circumstance and s uch other factors, without beco m ing exhaustive.

¶29

7. The process of sentencin g by the courts is guided by theories such as punitive, deterrent or reformative. Each school of thought has its o wn object and purpose to explain awarding of sentence and its uti l ity. Amongst these theories, reform a tive approach has become increasi n gly acceptable to the modern jurispr u dence. Reformation is something al w ays

¶30

AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.22 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

CRA-S-4152-SB-2017 4

¶32

considered progressive. When t h ere are mitigating circumstances, the court would lean towards reduci n g of the sentence. The focus would b e on the crime, and not on the crimin a l. The society and system would nur t ure the guilt with positivity, while sel e cting the sentence. xxx xxx xxx

¶33

9. The prolongation of a cri m inal case for an unreasonable period is in itself a kind of suffering. It a mounts to mental incarceration for the person facing such proceedings. For a person who is convicted and w ho has appealed against his or h er conviction and sentence and w ho everyday awaits the fate of liti g ation, spends time in distress. In the present-day system of administ r ation of justice, in which proceed i ngs have often go on protracted unr e asonably and therefore unbearably, the passage of long time itself makes the person suffer a mental agony.”

¶34

Having heard learned coun s el for the rival parties and u p on perusal of record; especially keeping in view the factum of the appellant being ag e d 58 years of age, the offenc e pertaining to the year 2015, the appellant having faced protracted trial i ncluding the present appeal for a period of approximately 09 years & the F IR in question being the only c a se against t h e appellant; this Court is inclin e d to modify the sentence awar d ed to the ap p ellant-convict to that of period a lready undergone. 8. In view of the above ratioci n ation, it is ordained thus:

¶35

(i) The conviction of the appellant-convict imposed vide impugne d judgment is upheld. Howe v er, the sentence of imprisonment imposed u pon the appellant is reduced t o that of already undergone. T he sentence of fine imposed upon the appe l lant-convict is maintained. Except with the m odification in the quantum of sentence as indicated hereinab o ve the appeal in hand stands disposed of.

¶36

(ii) The fine, if not already dep o sited, shall be deposited withi n a m period of one month from today, failing w hich the modification in quant u

¶37

AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.22 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

CRA-S-4152-SB-2017 5

¶39

of senten c e shall stand withdrawn and t h e appellant-convict shall unde r go remainin g period of sentence as awarded b y the trial court.

¶40

(iii) Pending application(s), if an y , shall also stand disposed off.

¶41

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE